Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility

From: Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 00:19:56 -0700
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote:

>
> I suggest that you would struggle, in any local court - and even perhaps in
> the Hague - to prove that you were justified in running over a kayak because
> it was showing lights that you interpreted as belonging to a different type
> of vessel or obstacle.
>

It's late here so a quick note. A maritime court would apportion damages
depending upon how much in the wrong one or both parties were. In this case
the court would be asked to look at mitigating circumstances and the actions
of the mariners (both mariners) leading up to the accident. So, for
instance, if a ship made an emergency turn and ran into a wharf to avoid a
kayak that was showing a blue light (for instance) and the watch officer did
not recognize it as a vessel until the last moment it's possible that the
kayaker would be apportioned some of the damages. Most collisions at sea
have a share of blame on both sides and maritime courts generally apportion
damages.

A "roadstead" is usually outside a harbor and is often where a ship anchors
awaiting clearance to enter the country. Sometimes pilotage is required but
usually not. In Panama, for instance, the roadstead outside the canal is not
pilotage waters but to enter the harbor (into Cristobal) a pilot would be
required. The pilot then would probably re-anchor the ship in a specific
place inside the harbor. If you can transit through an area without a pilot
then most mariners would not expect to take aboard a pilot for anchoring.
Mind you, ships can anchor in areas most people would not consider an
"anchorage".

I think you may also be confusing the ColRegs with navigation rules.

While there are restricted areas in navigable waters these are either
short-lived (and announced on the VHF) or permanent and marked on charts.
Strictly speaking this is not an application of the ColRegs. The ColRegs
deal with how to recognize the course another vessel is on, how to announce
to that other vessel your intentions, what is expected of a watch stander,
and how to maneuver to avoid a collision between vessels. It does not, for
instance, cover buoyage or navigational markers. The existence of the
ColRegs was designed to lessen local regulatory control over the way boats
display navigational information so that every mariner would be confident of
making a good decision.

Canada does require certain items to be carried on board a kayak but this,
again, is not a matter for ColRegs. Restricted areas are also not a matter
for the ColRegs. Navigation lights on vessels, on the other hand, are. The
addition of two lights, for instance, on a kayak would be a change to the
ColRegs light rules that could - if extended into areas traversed by
international maritime vessels - be misinterpreted.

If the local regulations simply mandated that all kayaks display
red/green/white nav lights then I would not have a problem (as a
professional mariner, at least). Everyone recognizes those and the ColRegs
do make that a condition.  If France wants to restrict kayaks to 2km from
shore that is certainly their perogative and the ColRegs has nothing to say
about it. But if they mandate the display of flashing white lights on those
kayaks it would inevitably lead to confusion because the ColRegs state - and
mariners the world over learn - that flashing white lights are not on moving
vessels.

Intrusion of "local control" into navigable waters seems to me to be
troubling.

But I only mentioned this in the beginning because some of you have stated
that you are troubled by the over-regulation of kayakers and I felt that you
might be able to use these arguments successfully before the local councils
(or whomever promulgates the rules in your jurisdiction). Local
jurisdictions could do few things more confusing to international commerce
than fiddle with the ColRegs. Now I see you all defending these local rules.
Since I will almost certainly never again pilot a ship in the s. hemisphere
or paddle a kayak there then I'm only concerned on a "concerned
international citizen" basis. If you want them to light a kayak up like a
christmas tree then I have no argument other than it seems like I'd pitch a
serious bitch if they tried to do it to me.


Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, WA
www.nwkayaking.net
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
Received on Wed Jul 01 2009 - 00:20:04 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:36 PDT